Class Action Defense Blog

Class Action Against Law Firm Alleging Violations of Debt Collection Laws Warranted Class Action Treatment over Defense Challenge to Adequacy of Representation based on Claim that Class Action was Filed by “Professional Plaintiff” and over Challenge to Superiority Prong of Rule 23(b)(3) Class Action Certification Test based on Negative Net Worth of Defendant and FDCPA’s 1% Net Worth Cap on Liability Connecticut Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action against the law firm of Wolpoff & Abramson alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Lemire v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 256 F.R.D. 321, 2009 WL 827764, *1 (D.Conn. 2009). According to the allegations underlying the class action, Wolpoff’s communication with Connecticut consumers violated state law and therefore a per se violation of the FDCPA, id. Wolpoff argued that a violation of Connecticut debt collection law is not a per se violation of the FDCPA. Id. Plaintiff moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action, id. The district court granted plaintiff’s motion and granted class action treatment.

After summarizing the well known rules for class action certification under Rule 23, see Lemire, at *2, the court turned to the merits of the motion. Wolpoff conceded that the numerosity test of Rule 23(a)(1) had been met, id., at *3. But as to commonality, Wolpoff argued that each collection letter sent to a Connecticut resident would have to be “analyzed individually to determine whether it contains actionable language” because different letters were sent to consumers who were represented by counsel than those who were unrepresented. Id. The federal court found, however, that the letters were similar in material respects and that the differences go to the merits of the class action claims. Id., at *3-*4. Given the “common content of Wolpoff’s letters” sent directly to consumers, the commonality test had been met. Id., at *4. And the letters to the attorneys were sufficiently similar to warrant class action treatment, and even if different could be addressed by dividing the group into two classes. Id., at *5. And the typicality test was satisfied because Wolpoff “failed to identify any unique ‘claims or defenses,’” id., at *6.

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases–Lemire v. Wolpoff & Abramson: Connecticut Federal Court Grants Class Action Treatment To FDCPA Class Action Against Law Firm" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

As a Matter of First Impression, Credit Card Debtor’s Class Action Cross-Complaint Alleging Violations of California’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act) Properly Dismissed on Demurrer for Failure to Define an Ascertainable Class and because Debt Collector was not Obligated to Disclose to Debtors that Debts Sought to be Collected were Time-Barred California State Court Holds

Plaintiff Asset Acceptance filed a lawsuit against debtor Lilia Hanson to collect on a $1300 credit card debt; the debtor filed a putative class action cross-complaint against Asset alleging that it violated California’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“the Rosenthal Act”), which incorporates the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Asset Acceptance, LLC v. Hanson, (Cal.App., Case No. B208548, April 1, 2009) (unpublished) [Slip Opn., at 1]. The class action claims were premised on the allegation that Asset systematically and fraudulently sought to collect on debts that were time-barred. Id. The central allegation underlying the class action cross-complaint is that Asset purchased credit card debts “for pennies on the dollar and tricks debtors into making payments, which has the legal effect of reviving the debt.” This is because, under California law, “If a debtor acknowledges a debt in writing after the statute of limitations has run, ‘a new obligation is created, for which the original barred debt is said to be “consideration.” The cause of action is on the new obligation, and a new statutory period starts running as on any other written promise.’” Id., at 2 (citations omitted). Asset demurred to the third amended class action cross-complaint; the trial court sustained the demurrer on the ground that the class action sought to represent a class that lacked a “well-defined community of interest.” Id., at 1. In an unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeal affirmed.

The Rosenthal Act “prohibits debt collectors from using threats, physical force, obscene language, annoying telephone calls, false representations, or falsely simulating a legal action.” Asset Acceptance, at 2 (citations omitted). In part, the statute prohibits a debt collector from obtaining “an affirmation from a debtor who has been adjudicated a bankrupt of a consumer debt which has been discharged in such bankruptcy, without clearly and conspicuously disclosing to the debtor, in writing, at the time such affirmation is sought, the fact that the debtor is not legally obligated to make such affirmation,” id. (citation omitted). The appellate court observed, however, that “The Rosenthal Act is silent on whether a debt collector must give a similar warning when attempting to collect a time-barred debt that has not been discharged in bankruptcy.” Id. This was the central issue on appeal, because the class action alleged that Asset failed to disclose to the putative class members that the debts it was seeking to collect were time barred when it contacted them demanding about payment on the credit card debts. Id., at 3. Further, not only was this a matter of first impression under California case law, but federal courts considering the issue under the FDCPA have reached different conclusions. Id., at 2-3.

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases–Asset Acceptance v. Hanson: California State Court Affirms Dismissal Of FDCPA Class Action Claims Holding Debt Collector Not Obligated To Inform Debtors That Debts Were Time-Barred" »

Posted In: Certification of Class Actions, FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Class Action Alleging FDCPA Violations Arising from Collection Practices Utilized to Collect from Check Writers of Bounced Checks Satisfied Rule 23 Requirements for Class Action Treatment California Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against various defendants, including American Corrective Counseling Services (ACCS), alleging that they “engaged in a pattern of behavior in implementing the District Attorney Bad Check Diversion Program” that violated, inter alia, the California Constitution and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); specifically, the class action complaint alleged that defendants “operated the Diversion Program unlawfully by using the names of local district attorneys, demanding fees, and using the threat of criminal prosecution to force bad check writers to comply with their payment demands.” Del Campo v. American Corrective Counseling Services, Inc., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (N.D. Cal. December 3, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1 (footnote omitted)]. According to the allegations underlying the class action, various retail merchants would refer bounced checks to the District Attorney, who in turn would decide whether to refer the check writer to the diversion program. If it is referred, then defendants “instruct the merchants not to communicate” with the check writers and send out letters “purporting to be from the Santa Clara District Attorney’s Bad Check Restitution Program or the Sonoma County District Attorney Bad Check Restitution Program” and explaining that they can “avoid criminal prosecution for allegedly violating California Penal Code 476(a) by enrolling in the optional Bad Check Programs, without any admissions of guilt.” Id., at 2-3. The letter would instruct the bad check writers to make new checks out to the Bad Check Program, and included in the total to be paid the amount of the bounced check, a $35 administration fee, and a diversion program fee. Id., at 3. Many check writers tendered less than the total amount listed in the letter, and never intended on participating in the Bad Checks Program and did not participate in the program, id. Defendants sent subsequent letters demanding payment of the balance of the sums owed. The class action followed, alleging inter alia violations of the FDCPA and California’s Unfair Business Practices Act. Id. Plaintiffs’ attorneys moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action; defense attorneys argued against class action treatment. Id., at 2. The district court determined that class action treatment was warranted and therefore granted plaintiffs’ class action certification motion.

With respect to Rule 23(a)’s requirements for class certification, the district court noted that defendants did not contest numerosity or commonality, but argued that plaintiffs’ claims were not typical and that they were not adequate representatives of the class. Del Campo, at 6. The federal court agreed that the numerosity and commonality tests had been met, see id., at 7-9. Turning to the typicality test, the court noted at page 9, “Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have not met the typicality requirement because the collection letters sent by Defendants contained ‘significant differences’ on a county-by-county basis.” Plaintiffs countered that the class action allegations assert that each of the letters “contain representations that: (1) the letter is from the local District Attorney, who has reviewed a criminal complaint made by the recipient of a dishonored check; (2) check writers who do not choose ‘diversion’ face a real risk of prosecution; and (3) to avoid prosecution, the check writer must pay the check, plus enumerated fees, and attend a ‘Financial Accountability’ Class.””Id., at 9. The district court agreed with plaintiffs, and found that the typicality test had been met, id., at 10. Defendants also argued that the named plaintiffs were not adequate representatives of the class and that plaintiffs’ counsel had a conflict of interest in representing the class. Id., at 10. The basis for the attack on the plaintiffs was their dishonesty, as evidenced by the fact that they bounced checks; the district court readily concluded that an element of being in the class could not disqualify someone from serving as the class representative. Id., at 11. And the court rejected the idea that the lobbying efforts of plaintiffs’ counsel created a conflict of interest in representing the class. Id., at 12.

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases–Del Campo v. American Corrective Counseling: California Federal Court Certifies FDCPA Class Action Finding Attack On Practices Used To Collect On Bounced Checks Warranted Class Action Treatment" »

Posted In: Certification of Class Actions, FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Class Action Challenging Defendants Debt Collection Practices Warranted Class Action Treatment Illinois Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action against MRC Receivables and others alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Illinois Collection Agency Act (ICAA). Herkert v. MRC Receivables Corp., 254 F.R.D. 344, 346 (N.D.Ill. 2008). Defendants are engaged in the business of “purchasing and managing charged-off consumer receivables portfolios.” Id. After defendants filed suit against them to collect on credit card debts, plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit, id. Specifically, the class action complaint alleged that defendants “had a policy and practice of violating Section 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA, and Section 425/9(a)(20) of the ICAA,” id., at 346-47. The gravamen of the class action is that defendants filed lawsuits to collect credit card debts without attaching a signed contract to the complaints, and after the expiration of the 5-year statute of limitations. Id., at 347. Plaintiffs moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action, id., at 346. The district court amended the definition of the class and, as amended, granted plaintiffs’ motion for class action treatment.

The motion for class certification proposed three classes, under the FDCPA and one under the ICAA. Heckert, at 347. The district court readily found Rule 23(a)(1)’s numerosity requirement for class actions to be satisfied because defendants “file…thousands of cases each month in Illinois state court.” Id., at 348. The federal court rejected defendants’ claim that they would not be able “to construct an accurate search of their record-keeping system on a searchable, system-wide basis, and that it would thus be impossible to determine the identity of the class members.” Id. However, the court agreed to amend the class definitions “to ensure that the classes are ascertainable based on objectively identifiable criteria, namely, according to the date of the final statement of account as given in the affidavits attached to the state court complaints.” Id. As so amended, the class definition would not require the parties to rely on defendants’ records in order to ascertain class membership, id., at 349.

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases–Herkert v. MRC Receivables: Illinois Federal Court Amends Class Definitions And Certifies Class Action In FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) Class Action" »

Posted In: Certification of Class Actions, FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

As Matter of First Impression, Dunning Letters/Settlement Offer Letters Sent by Debt Collector over Signatures of Corporate Officers who did not Write, Sign or Personally Authorize Letters did not Violate FDCPA because Letters were Plainly Sent on Behalf of Corporation and not Individuals Third Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action against various defendants, including Midland Credit Management, alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); the class action complaint asserted that defendants sent “false, misleading, or deceptive collection notices in contravention of §§ 1692e and 1692e(9) of the Act.” Campuzano-Burgos v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 550 F.3d 294, 296 (3d Cir. 2008). The main question presented by the FDCPA class action, and the question the district court ultimately certified to the Third Circuit, was “whether a senior officer of a collection company violates the Act by signing ‘dunning letters’ sent to debtors.” Id. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of liability; the district court rejected the defense motion holding that a debt collector violates the FDCPA “by sending debtors settlement offers that bear the name of one of the company's senior executives.” Id. The Third Circuit accepted the certified question and concluded that defendants did not violate the FDCPA; accordingly, it remanded the class action to the district court with instruction to enter judgment in favor of the defendants.

The debt collection letters sent by defendants to collect unpaid debts were “nearly identical in content and form.” Campuzano-Burgos, at 296. The letters were signed by corporate officers of Midland Credit, and accurately reflected their titles and positions with the company, id., at 297. But while the officers were deemed to have authorized the letters, they were not attorneys they did not actually write or sign the letters, and the letters were sent without the officers’ knowledge. Id. The district court concluded that case law “expresse[d] a general concern with debt collectors' practice of falsely implying that someone in a position of real authority [wa]s supervising the collection of [a] debt.” Campuzano-Burgos v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 497 F.Supp.2d 660, 664 (E.D.Pa. 2007). The district court held that the letters violated the FDCPA because “the use of top executives of the company as signatories is likely meant to impress upon debtors the seriousness of the communication and will almost certainly have such an effect on at least some debtors.” 550 F.3d at 298 (quoting 497 F.Supp.2d at 665). Moreover, because the officers “had no ‘actual involvement in the decision to send the letter[s] to a particular debtor ... the letters ... are deceptive and misleading within the meaning of Section 1692e.’” Id. (citation omitted). On appeal, defense attorneys argued that the letters were not deceptive and clearly conveyed that they were sent on behalf of “the company as a whole” rather than the individual officers, id. The Third Circuit agreed.

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases–Campuzano-Burgos v. Midland Credit: Third Circuit Reverses FDCPA Class Action Ruling In Favor Of Plaintiffs Holding Dunning Letters Underlying Class Action Did Not Violate FDCPA" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Class Action Alleging Violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Survives Defense Motion to Dismiss because Class Action Complaint Alleged Debt Collector Failed to Identify Itself or that it was Attempting to Collect a Debt in its Initial Communication with Plaintiff New Mexico Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action against a debt collector alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act; the class action complaint asserted that. Anchondo v. Anderson, Crenshaw & Associates, L.L.C., 583 F.Supp.2d 1278, 1280 (D. N.M. 2008). According to the allegations underlying the class action, plaintiff purchased a home alarm system which failed to work properly so she stopped paying the monthly service fee; the alarm company retained debt collector Anderson, Crenshaw & Associates to collect the fees owed. Id. Defendant telephoned plaintiff and left a message on her answering machine requesting a return call; the message said the matter was “important,” but did not identify defendant or disclose that it concerned an attempt to collect a debt. Id. Plaintiff filed her class action complaint a few months later, alleging claims for relief under the FDCPA and the UPA, id. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action under Rule 12(b)(6) or, alternatively, for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). Id., at 1279-80. The defense argued that the class action failed because the message left on plaintiff’s answering machine was not a “communication” within the meaning of the FDCPA, and because the FDCPA was unconstitutionally vague and unreasonably impeded defendant’s First Amendment right to exercise commercial speech. Id., at 1280. The district court denied the motion.

With respect to defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the district court readily found that the allegations in the class action complaint satisfied the requirements for pleading a violation of the FDCPA because it alleged that defendant (1) “fail[ed] to identify itself” and (2) failed to “state that the voicemail message was left on her answering machine as an attempt to collect a debt.” Anchondo, at 1280 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11)). And because the complaint’s allegations are accepted as true for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6) motions, the alleged constitutional law defenses “have no bearing as to whether Plaintiff has made sufficient factual allegations to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Id., at 1280-81 (citation omitted).

With respect to the Rule 12(c) motion, the federal court explained that the FDCPA requires debt collectors to disclose their identity in initial communications made for the purpose of collecting a debt, and that the purpose of the communication is to collect a debt. Anchondo, at 1281. Congress enacted the FDCPA to protect consumers against abusive debt collection practices, and because the message defendant left for plaintiff did not include the required disclosures she “would be entitled to relief, pursuant to the FDCPA, if she can prove that the voicemail was a communication regarding a debt.” Id. (citation omitted). The district court concluded that nothing more was required “at this stage of the proceedings,” and that the constitutional challenges were not ripe for adjudication. Id., at 1281-82. Accordingly, it denied the defense motion in its entirety. Id., at 1282.

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases–Anchondo v. Anderson: New Mexico Federal Court Denies Motion To Dismiss FDCPA Class Action Holding Class Action Complaint Adequately Alleged Debt Collector Violated State And Federal Laws" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

District Court Properly Granted Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment Motion in Class Action Under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) because Fees Debt Collector Sought to Recover and Underlying Class Action Claims were not Proper Seventh Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action against AFNI, a debt collection company, alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Wisconsin Consumer Act; the class action complaint asserted that AFNI’s collection practices violated state and federal law because ANFI sought to collect a 15% that was not authorized by either statute or contract. Seeger v. AFNI, Inc., 548 F.3d 1107, 1109-10 (7th Cir. 2008). According to the class action complaint, plaintiffs had entered into contracts with various cellular telephone service providers, and each contract advised customers of the possibility that a debt collection agency may be retained in the event of a payment default, id., at 1109-10; for example, Cingular’s contracts provided that customers would be required to pay “the fees of any collection agency, which may be based on a percentage at a maximum of 33% of the debt, and all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs,” incurred in collecting payments owed, id., at 1110. Additionally, each service contract “contained various provisions making it clear that failure to pay was cause for termination of the contract and that an early termination fee or cancellation fee would be imposed.” Id. Each plaintiff fell behind on payments owed under the cell phone contracts, id., at 1109. AFNI purchased the accounts, and sent debt collection letters to plaintiffs “informing each one that he owed a debt and that Cingular was the original creditor” and that each “was responsible for paying AFNI a collection fee of 15% of the ‘original balance.’” Id., at 1109-10. Plaintiffs filed the class action complaint “alleging that [ANFI’s] attempt to include a separate collection fee in the amount due violated the FDCPA”; an amended class action complaint added party plaintiffs and added also the Wisconsin Consumer Act claim. Id., at 1110. Plaintiffs’ attorneys moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action, and the district court agreed that class action treatment was warranted. Id., at 1110. The parties then filed cross motions for summary judgment; the district court ruled in favor of plaintiffs and ANFI appealed. Id., at 1109. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

In ruling on the summary judgment motions, the district court concluded that AFNI violated both the FDCPA and Wisconsin state law “because neither AFNI's contracts with its customers nor Wisconsin law authorized it to charge the type of collection fee it was using.” Seeger, at 1109. Specifically, the district court ruled that ANFI “violated the FDCPA because neither the contracts nor Wisconsin law permitted the owner of a debt to impose a separate fee for collection, if the fee was for the purpose of reimbursing the owner itself as opposed to a third-party debt collector.” Id., at 1110. Defense attorneys first argued that Wisconsin law permits debt collectors to charge “incidental or consequential damages” for customer breaches of the cell phone service contracts, and by extension that the 15% fee it sought to charge plaintiffs “may be collected by an entity that purchases the contract for collection purposes.” Id., at 1111. The Seventh Circuit disagreed. The Court recognized that all states “permits recovery of losses that are the natural and probable result of the breach of a contract and that were within the reasonable contemplation of the parties” and that “[t]his rule applies to service contracts like the plaintiffs' cell phone contracts,” id. (citations omitted), but it found ANFI’s reliance on this general proposition to be insufficient. Rather, to recover the 15% fee it sought to impose, ANFI “must show that this rule permits a third-party purchaser of an account to recover its internal costs to recover the debt in this manner, and, if so, that the 15% fee it charged to the plaintiffs reflected AFNI's actual costs.” Id. The defense argument failed, the Circuit Court concluded, because (1) “Neither a law expressly permitting a collection fee on behalf of a person in the position of a seller of cellular telephone services nor an agreement between the class members and their cellular providers exists here”; and (2) ANFI failed to establish that the fee it sought to charge “can properly be characterized as incidental or consequential damages resulting from the plaintiffs' breach of their cellular phone contracts with Cingular.” Id., at 1112.

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases–Seeger v. AFNI: Seventh Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment Against Debt Collector In FDCPA Class Action Holding Fee Sought To Be Recovered By Debt Collector Were Not Authorized" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

FDCPA Class Action Complaint Warranted Class Action Treatment because Plaintiff Satisfied Requirements for Rule 23(b)(3) Class Illinois Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action against Revenue Production Management, Inc., a debt collection agency, alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); the class action complaint asserted “that Defendant had a policy and practice of violating Section 1692e of the FDCPA by: (1) sending [debt collection letters] after the expiration of the 30-day validation period outlined in the initial communication; (2) informing the consumer that the debt must be disputed in writing after expiration of the 30-day validation period outlined in the initial communication; and (3) informing the consumer that a dispute must be made within 30 days of the initial communication, after the expiration of the 30-day validation period outlined in the initial communication.” Quiroz v. Revenue Production Management, Inc., 252 F.R.D. 438, 440 (N.D. Ill. 2008). Plaintiff’s lawyers filed a motion with the district court to certify the litigation as a class action. Id. The district court concluded that class action treatment was warranted and granted plaintiff’s motion.

Plaintiff incurred debts in connection with medical treatment he received, but “[he] did not pay the debt because he believed it was covered by his employer's workers' compensation insurance.” Quiroz, at 440. After plaintiff defaulted on the obligation, it was assigned to defendant who sent plaintiff an initial debt collection letter on April 17, 2007. Id. It was not until June 6, 2007, however, that defendant sent a letter to plaintiff advising him that “[i]f you dispute the validity of this debt then you must notify us in writing within 30 (thirty) days of our initial notice to you.” Id. Plaintiff’s class action certification motion asserted that a Rule 23(b)(3) class action should be certified, id., at 440-41.

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases–Quiroz v. Revenue Production Management: Illinois Federal Court Certifies Class Action Holding Requirements For Certification Of Rule 23(b)(3) Class Action Had Been Met" »

Posted In: Certification of Class Actions, FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Motion to Dismiss FDCPA Class Action Claim Premised on Filing Untimely Debt Collection Lawsuits Fails but Motion to Dismiss State Law Class Action Claims and to Dismiss FDCPA Class Action Claim based on Attorney Fees Sought in Debt Collection Lawsuits were Meritorious Florida Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action against Portfolio Recovery Associates (PRA) and certain individuals (PRA’s lawyers) alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Florida’s Consumer Collections Practices Act (FCCPA); the class action complaint asserted that in violation of state and federal law, defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of filing lawsuits to collect debts after the statute of limitations had expired for doing so, and that defendants sought a standard amount of attorney fees without supporting documentation and without actually having incurred the stated amount in attorney fees. Gaisser v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 571 F.Supp.2d 1273, 1274-75 (S.D. Fla. 2008). According to the class action, “Defendants’ practice of attempting to collect on debts after expiration of the applicable statute of limitations and Defendants’ practice regarding attorney’s fees runs afoul of the FDCPA.” Id., at 1275. More specifically, the class action complaint alleged that “Defendants used false or misleading representations to collect or attempt to collect a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e,” and “used unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f.” Id. The class action further alleged that defendants’ conduct violated Florida state law. Id. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the first amended class action complaint. Id., at 1274. The district court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part.

Plaintiff incurred credit card debts but was unable to keep up with the required payments. Gaisser, at 1274. The debt was assigned to PRA, who retained counsel to file suit against plaintiff to collect on the debt. Id. The first issue the district court addressed was whether New Hampshire’s three-year statute of limitations applied or Florida’s five-year statute of limitations applied to the debt collection lawsuits filed by defendants. Id., at 1275-76. The Court concluded that New Hampshire law applied, id., at 1276-77, and that defense attorneys failed to establish that the lawsuit – filed against plaintiff four years after the commencement of the statute of limitations – was filed timely, id., at 1277-78. But the district court granted the defense motion to dismiss the class action claims premised on the lawyer’s attorney fees, concluding that the lawyer verified only what a “reasonable fee” would be for the services rendered, not that the amount sought represented his “actual fee.” Id., at 1278. Because defendants did not represent the amount of attorney fees requested was a “sum certain,” and because defendants invited the court to determine the “reasonable fee” to be awarded, the class action claims based on the attorney fee requests failed. Id., at 1277-78.

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases–Gaisser v. Portfolio Recovery Associates: Florida Federal Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Certain Class Action Claims But Denies Motion To Dismiss FDCPA Class Action" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Class Action Claims not Rendered Moot by Rule 68 Offer of Judgment to Settle Individual Claims of Named Plaintiffs so long as Plaintiffs have not Delayed in Seeking Class Action Treatment of Litigation Ohio Federal Holds

Two class action lawsuits were filed against the law firm of Cheek & Zeehandelar, a consumer debt collection firm, alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA); the class action complaints alleged that defendant “engages in misleading and deceptive debt-collection practices” and that it “uniformly fails to properly investigate whether debtor funds are lawfully subject to attachment, prior to seeking and obtaining orders of attachment. Stewart v. Cheek & Zeehandelar, LLP, 252 F.R.D. 384, 384-85 (S.D. Ohio 2008). The class actions were consolidated, and the district court ordered that plaintiffs file their motion for class action certification by February 15, 2008. Id., at 385. Prior to February 15, defendant served a Rule 68 offer of judgment on plaintiffs, which offered to compensate them for their individual claims only; the Rule 68 offer did not offer to settle the claims of the putative class. Id. Plaintiffs moved to strike the offer of judgment and, on February 15, 2008, filed their motion for certification of the litigation as a class action. Id. The district court granted plaintiffs’ motion to strike the offer of judgment.

The district court began its analysis by noting that “[t]he purpose of Rule 68 ‘is to encourage settlement and avoid litigation.’” Stewart, at 385 (quoting Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1, 5 (1985)). Rule 23 class actions, by contrast, serves to vindicate important constitutional and statutory rights by permitting individually small damage claims to be grouped together so that the amount of money involved is worth the fight. Id. Or as the Supreme Court put it, “Where it is not economically feasible to obtain relief within the traditional framework of a multiplicity of small individual suits for damages, aggrieved persons may be without any effective redress unless they may employ the class-action device.” Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The district court observed at page 385, “The great weight of federal authority holds that a Rule 68 offer of judgment cannot moot the named plaintiffs' claims after a motion for class certification has been filed.” (Citations omitted.) To hold otherwise would permit defendants to “unilaterally control whether the district court ever heard the certification motion,” id., at 385-86 Moreover, “Although courts are somewhat more divided about the effect of a Rule 68 offer before a class-certification motion has been filed, most have endorsed the view that the settlement offer will not moot the named plaintiffs' claims so long as the plaintiffs have not been dilatory in bringing their certification motion.: Id., at 386 (citations omitted). After summarizing the reasons behind the majority view, the district court adopted that rule and held, further, that plaintiffs had not been dilatory in seeking class action certification. Id., at 386-87. Accordingly, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion to strike the Rule 68 offer of judgment, id., at 387.

Continue reading "Class Action Defense Cases--Stewart v. Cheek & Zeehandelar: Ohio Federal Court Strikes Rule 68 Offer Of Judgment In FDCPA Class Action Holding Rule 68 Offer To Settle Individual Claims After Class Action Certification Motion Filed Cannot Moot Class Claims" »

Posted In: Certification of Class Actions, FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Class Action Complaint Failed to Adequately Allege Violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) because Mere Attachment of Entire Contract with Unenforceable Attorney Fee Clause to Debt Collection Complaint Underlying Class Action was not an Attempt to Collect Attorney Fees where Debt Collection Complaint did not Pray for Such Fees Sixth Circuit Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action complaint in Ohio federal court against two debt collection attorneys and the law firm where they worked, Keith D. Weiner & Associates; defendants had filed a lawsuit against plaintiff in Ohio state court seeking to recover $8,146.53, plus interest at the rate of 16% per annum and costs alleged owed a college under a revolving credit agreement that contained the following attorney fees clause: “I/We understand that upon default of any, or all of the terms and conditions of this credit agreement and upon proper service of a NOTICE OF DEFAULT by the College, all signers immediately become, at the option of the college, liable for attorney fees and/or actual or reasonable collection costs which may be added to the Total Amount Due.” Barany-Snyder v. Weiner, 539 F.3d 327, 330 (6th Cir. 2008). The collection action did not seek attorney's fees, and the court entered in favor of the college did not award attorney fees because the college did not seek such an award. Id., at 331. Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy protection, and the college’s debt ultimately was discharged. Id. Plaintiff’s class action complaint alleged that defendants violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act; the class action alleged that Ohio law “prohibits creditors from recovering attorney's fees in connection with the collection of a consumer debt,” and that defendants violated state and federal law by attaching the college’s credit agreement with the attorney fees clause to the state court complaint. Id. Defense attorneys moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the class action failed to state a claim; the district court granted the motion and plaintiff appealed. Id. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Plaintiff’s theory of the case was that “all signers immediately become, at the option of the college, liable for attorney fees and/or actual or reasonable collection costs” and that this violated the FDCPA’s prohibition against making false, deceptive, or misleading representations in connection with the collection of a debt. Barany-Snyder, at 332. The Sixth Circuit disagreed, holding that because the credit agreement was attached in its entirety, and because the attorney fee clause was not “drawn to the consumer's attention,” even the “least sophisticated debtor” would not have interpreted the debt collection lawsuit as one seeking attorney fees. Id., at 334-35. The Circuit Court explained at page 335, “Indeed, as the district court noted, adopting [plaintiff’s] position leads to the untenable conclusion that the attachment of a contract to a complaint or dunning letter is equivalent to a present threat to exercise every provision of that contract.” Additionally, “while attachment of an affidavit asserting a possible entitlement to attorney's fees might have been misleading and deceptive to the least sophisticated consumer, this conduct simply did not amount to a false representation in violation of § 1692e(2).” Id., at 335 (citation omitted). Accordingly, defendants’ debt collection action failed to state a claim under § 1692e(2). Id., at 335-36. Finally, the Circuit Court further affirmed that the debt collection action did not attempt to collect a debt in excess of the amount lawfully owed, so defendants did not violate § 1692f(1) as alleged in the class action complaint. Id., at 336. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court judgment dismissing the class action complaint, id.

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases–Barany-Snyder v. Weiner: Sixth Circuit Affirms Judgment On The Pleadings on FDCPA Class Action Holding Attachment Of Entire Contract To Debt Collection Complaint Was Not An Effort To Enforce Each Term In Contract" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Plaintiffs Lacked Standing to Prosecute Class Action because Underlying Events Occurred Prior to Filing of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Proceeding by Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Failed to Disclose Existence of Class Action Claims in Bankruptcy California Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Washington Mutual and other defendants alleging inter alia violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); specifically, the class action complaint alleged that defendants improperly froze plaintiffs’ checking account funds. Yack v. Washington Mutual Inc., 389 B.R. 91, 93 (N.D. Cal. 2008). Plaintiffs each had medical problems, and used a credit card to pay for some of their medical bills, id. When plaintiffs fell behind on their payments, their credit card company hired a debt collector, defendant Sunlan, which obtained a $10,000 judgment against them and then levied on their Washington Mutual bank account. Id., at 93-94. Washington Mutual complied with the levy, forwarding funds from plaintiffs’ account to the County Sheriff and withdrawing a legal processing fee, id., at 94. Plaintiffs alleged that the funds were exempt from levy because they social security and pension benefits; a California Superior Court agreed and ordered the funds released, id. Several months later, plaintiffs filed a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding, id., at 95. Plaintiffs thereafter filed their putative class action complaint alleging that defendants levied on their bank account despite knowing that the funds were exempt from attachment. Id., at 94. Defense attorneys filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, id. The district court agreed and dismissed the class action.

The thrust of the defendants’ challenge to the class action complaint was that plaintiffs lacked standing to prosecute the claims because they “failed to list the claims in their bankruptcy proceeding, and because they are judicially estopped from pursuing claims held by the bankruptcy trustee.” Yack, at 95. Defense attorneys argued that plaintiffs filed their Chapter 7 proceeding many months after the events underlying the putative class action complaint, and that they did not disclose in that proceeding the claims they now sought to prosecute: “in doing so, plaintiffs effectively concealed from the bankruptcy their supposed claims against defendants.” Id. According to the district court, plaintiffs conceded “that they lack standing to assert those claims in federal court.” Id. The court found that plaintiffs’ efforts to re-open the bankruptcy and obtain abandonment from the trustee of the claims underlying the class action complaint failed, as the bankruptcy court affirmatively denied them that relief. Id., at 96. Accordingly, plaintiffs lacked standing to prosecute the class action, id. The federal court also agreed with defendants’ alternative argument, that plaintiffs were barred from prosecuting the class action claims by the doctrine of judicial estoppel. See id., at 96-97. Accordingly, the court dismissed with prejudice the class action complaint against defendants. Id., at 97.

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Following Class Action Settlement Providing for Award of Reasonable Attorney Fees to Plaintiff’s Lawyers in FDCPA Class Action, District Court Failed to Explain Why $200 per hour was Reasonable for the Relevant Community and Failed to Determine Lodestar for Fees-on-Fees Request, thus Requiring that Fee Award be Vacated and Matter Remanded for Further Proceedings Ninth Circuit Holds

Plaintiff debtor filed a putative class action against Bridgeport Financial, a debt collector, alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); the class action complaint alleged that defendant “misrepresented the rights of consumers in its initial collection letter by requiring her to dispute her debt in writing.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc., ___F.3d ___ (9th Cir. April 22, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 4242-43]. The district court granted class action certification of a statewide class, and the parties entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement that the district court ultimately approved. Id., at 4243. The Ninth Circuit opinion identifies but a single benefit provided by the class action settlement for the 7,000 class members – a cy pres award of $341.50; the agreement provided that the named plaintiff receive $1,000 in actual and statutory damages. Id. The Class Action Settlement Agreement provided further that plaintiffs’ three law firms could file a motion for attorney fees and costs if the parties could not agree on the amount of such an award, id. Plaintiff’s lawyers sought almost $170,000 in attorney fees and costs, reflecting hourly rates ranging from $425 to $500 for the attorneys, and $115 to $200 for law clerks, id., at 4243-44. The district court found the hours spent by plaintiff’s lawyers to be reasonable, but reduced the reasonable hourly rate to $200 for all attorneys and awarded a flat fee of $500 for the motion seeking fees and costs, which the court found to be “virtually identical to the materials these attorneys have submitted in other cases.” Id., at 4245-46. In the end, the district court awarded approximately $77,000 in fees and costs, id., at 4246. The lawyers appealed, and the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

The Circuit Court noted that under the terms of the Class Action Settlement Agreement defendant “agreed to pay reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and costs.” Camacho, at 4247. The Court stated that the FDCPA “makes an award of fees mandatory.” Id. The Ninth Circuit explained that the district court’s order would be reversed only for clear error, id., at 4246 (citation omitted), and that and that district courts are required to use the “lodestar” method for determining the amount of attorney fees to be awarded, id, at 4247 (citations omitted). The lodestar takes the reasonable hourly rate and multiplies it by the reasonable number of hours incurred by counsel, id.; because the district court found that the hours spent by plaintiff’s lawyers were reasonable, the only issue was whether the district abused its discretion in reducing the hourly rate for plaintiff’s lawyers to $200 per hour. Id., at 4247-48.

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases--Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial: Ninth Circuit Vacates Fee Awarded FDCPA Class Action Plaintiff Lawyers Due To District Court's Failure To Explain Hourly Rate Utilized And Failure To Use Lodestar To Award Fees-On-Fees" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

As Matter of First Impression, FDCPA Permits Consumers to Notify Debt Collectors of Dispute Within 30 Days of Receiving Debt Collectors’ Letter Necessitating Reversal of Summary Judgment in Favor of Defense in FDCPA Class Action Second Circuit Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative nationwide class action complaint against Healthcare Financial Services (HFS), a “debt collector” within the meaning of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging that a debt collection letter he received from HFS violated the FDCPA by failing to advise debtors of their right to dispute the validity of the debt. Jacobson v. Healthcare Fin. Servs., Inc., 516 F.3d 85, 2008 WL 383060, *1 (2d Cir. 2008). The class action complaint did not allege that plaintiff suffered any actual loss, limiting recover to statutory damages and attorney fees. Id. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action, or in alternative sought summary judgment, on the ground that the debt collection letter did not violate the FDCPA; the defense also sought attorney fees from plaintiff, arguing that he had filed the class action “in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment,” see 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). Id. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of HFS and awarded HFS attorney fees and costs, id. The Second Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.

The FDCPA provision at issue provides that a debtor has the right to dispute a debt and seek verification of the validity of the debt by notifying the debt collector of the right to dispute the debt. Jacobson, at *2. The Second Circuit recognized that it must view the issue from the perspective of the “least sophisticated consumer,” see id., at *3 (citing Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314, 1318 (2d Cir. 1993)), but observed also that “the objective test we apply [also] protects debt collectors from unreasonable constructions of their communications,” that the Second Circuit has “carefully preserved the concept of reasonableness,” and that “the FDCPA does not aid plaintiffs whose claims are based on ‘bizarre or idiosyncratic interpretations of collection notices.’” Id. (citations omitted). So viewed, the Circuit Court held that the letter sent by HFS clearly advised debtors of their right to dispute the validity of the alleged debt.

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases-Jacobson v. Healthcare Financial: Second Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment In Favor Of Defense In FDCPA Class Action And Vacates Award Of Attorney Fees And Costs Against Class Action Plaintiff" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Using Consolidated Individual and Class Action Lawsuits Alleging Various Violations of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Seventh Circuit Resolves Nine Issues of Recurring Concern Including Debt Collection Communications with Lawyers for Consumers

The Seventh Circuit consolidated for decision four class action and individual lawsuits brought under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) “that present nine questions…, several of which have engendered considerable controversy at the circuit level and even some circuit splits.” Evory v. RJM Acquisitions Funding LLC, ___ F.3d ___ [Slip Opn., at 3] (7th Cir. October 23, 2007). Two of the consolidated cases were filed as putative class action lawsuits, but the issues addressed by the Seventh Circuit frequently arise in FDCPA class action litigation. The nine questions are: (1) the FDCPA notice requirements apply if the consumer is represented by legal counsel; (2) whether the FDCPA prohibition against “harassing, deceptive, and unfair practices in debt collection” applies to communications with a debtor’s lawyer and, if so, (3) whether the applicable standard for determining if such a violation occurred is the same if made to a lawyer as if made to the debtor; (4) whether the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from including settlement offers in a debt collection letter and, if not per se unlawful, (5) whether it matters if the offer is made to a lawyer rather than directly to a debtor; (6) whether a safe harbor exists for debt collectors accused of violating § 1692e based on settlement offers and, if so, (7) the evidence required to establish that a settlement offer violates that statute; and finally, (8) “[w]hether the determination that a representation is or is not false, deceptive, or misleading under section 1692 is always to be treated as a matter of law,” and, if not, (9) whether the court may nonetheless dismiss a claim under § 1692e “on the ground that the challenged representation was, as a matter of law, not false or misleading.” Id., at 3-4.

The Seventh Circuit held as follows. First, that the notice requirements apply regardless of whether the debtor is represented by counsel because it would be “odd if the fact that a consumer was represented excused the debt collector from having to convey to the consumer the information to which the statute entitles him.” Evory, at 6. Second, that while lawyers are “less likely to be deceived,” the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from using “any unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt” and there is no reason to “immuniz[e] practices forbidden by the statute when they are directed against a consumer’s lawyer.” Id., at 7. However, the Circuit Court held that the standard generally applicable for determining violations of the FDCPA - viz., whether the representation would mislead an “unsophisticated consumer” - does not apply to communications with lawyers, id., at 7-8; rather, the Seventh Circuit held “that a representation by a debt collector that would be unlikely to deceive a competent lawyer, even if he is not a specialist in consumer debt law, should not be actionable,” id., at 9. But this is not true for statements that are false or misleading, because “[a] false claim of fact…may be as difficult for a lawyer to see through as a consumer.” Id., at 9. Representations that are false or misleading - that is, where the lawyer “might be unable to discover the falsity of the representation without an investigation that he might be unable, depending on his client’s resources, to undertake” - are actionable irrespective of whether they are made to the debtor or to the debtor’s counsel. Id., at 9-10.

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases-Evory v. RJM Acquisitions: Seventh Circuit Consolidates Class Action And Individual Lawsuits To Resolve Nine Difficult FDCPA Questions With Direct Impact On FDCPA Class Actions" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Class Action Plaintiff Lawyer’s Collusion with Plaintiff’s Counsel in Separate Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Class Action Against Same Defendant is not Condoned but Remedy lies with Congress not with Disciplinary Bodies California Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against a debt collection agency and one of its employees alleging that letters sent to debtors violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and California’s state law equivalent, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act). Guevarra v. Progressive Fin. Servs., Inc., 497 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1090-91 (N.D. Cal. 2007). The class action complaint originally sought “class-wide relief on behalf of all debtors who received the letter at issue here”; however, plaintiff’s counsel subsequently amended the class action allegations to seek relief solely on behalf of debtors of a single creditor. IKEA. Id., at 1091. Plaintiff’s counsel then asked the district court to certify the litigation as a class action, and admitted at oral argument that counsel was “coordinating with plaintiff’s counsel in a separate [class action] pending in the Central District of California concerning the same letter as the one at issue here.” Id. As the district court explained at page 1091, “Apparently, plaintiff’s counsel agreed with counsel in the [other class action] to divide up the class between the IDEA and non-IKEA creditors.” The district court refused to certify the litigation as a class action and issued an Order to Show Cause why plaintiff’s counsel should not be referred to the State Bar for disciplinary action. Id.

The district court denied the class certification motion “citing plaintiff's arbitrary distinction between IKEA and non-IKEA creditors and concluding that plaintiff's proposed definition is not ‘superior’ to other means available under FRCP 23(b)(3).” Guevarra, at 1091. The federal court explained at page 1091, “Because plaintiff's counsel appeared to have divided up the class in order to maximize attorney fees without significant benefit to their clients, the court ordered plaintiff's counsel to show cause why the court should not refer this matter to the State Bar of California and the Northern District's Standing Committee on Professional Conduct” (citations omitted). The court also concluded that the case relied upon by plaintiff’s counsel, Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 109 F.3d 338 (7th Cir.1997), was in applicable because the Mace court merely refused to impose on counsel a duty to bring a class action “on behalf of the broadest possible class”; “Mace does not, however, condone post-suit collusion between counsel in separate actions in order to cut a class in two.” Id., at 1091.

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases-Guevarra v. Progressive Financial: California Federal Court Holds Congress Must Address "Ethically Questionable" Conduct of Plaintiff's Counsel In Multiplying Class Action Litigation" »

Posted In: Certification of Class Actions, FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Federal Court Holds Least Sophisticated Debtor would be Misled by Language in Debt Collection Letter thus Entitling Plaintiff in FDCPA Class Action to Summary Judgment and Finds Fact Plaintiff was not Misled Irrelevant to its Decision or to Defense Motion to Decertify Class Action

Plaintiff filed a class action in California federal court against Arrow Financial Services alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and its state-law equivalent, California’s Rosenthal Act, in that debt collection letters sent by defendant failed to comply with the applicable laws. Gonzales v. Arrow Fin. Servs. LLC, 489 F.Supp.2d 1140, 1143 (S.D. Cal. 2007). The class action complaint was premised on the following language in defendant’s “form collection letters”: “Upon receipt of the settlement amount and clearance of funds, and if we are reporting the account, the appropriate credit bureaus will be notified that this account has been settled.” Id. Plaintiff alleged this violated the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Act because the debt underlying defendant’s collection effort had been charged off more than 7 years ago and “a credit bureau cannot report a debt charged off more than 7 years previously,” id. An unsophisticated consumer thus may be misled by the form letter into believing that “payment or nonpayment of the claimed debt may impact the consumer's credit reporting, when that is not true.” Id., at 1143-44. After the district court certified the lawsuit as a class action, defense and plaintiff attorneys filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and defense attorneys moved to decertify the class, id., at 1144. The district court denied both defense motions, and granted partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff.

After summarizing the FDCPA and the “least sophisticated debtor” standard applied in the Ninth Circuit, Arrow, at 1146, a determination made by the court, not a jury, measured by an “objective standard,” id., and after setting forth the relevant section of the Rosenthal Act, id. (quoting Cal. Civil Code, § 1788.13(f)), the district court turned to the defense motion for summary judgment. Defense attorneys argued that the debt collection letters did not violate the FDCPA or the Rosenthal Act because the letters are not false or misleading – the letters did not “illegally threaten[] any action” or mislead or deceive anyone, and “Arrow does not have a policy to report debts such as plaintiff's debts to the credit bureaus and in no way seeks to use credit reporting as a means to illegally collect debts.” Id., at 1147. The defense also relied on plaintiff’s deposition testimony that (1) he knew he did not have to pay the debt and that Arrow would not report such a failure to credit bureaus, and (2) he was not confused by the letter he received from Arrow, id. The federal court noted that it had already found the letters to be misleading or deceptive because “without any explanation detailing what debts are likely to be reported or even if the subject debt is one that is reportable, ‘the least sophisticated debtor could likely believe his [or her] debt is reportable just because the letters indicate the credit bureaus will be notified’” and that even though the letters did not expressly threaten to contact credit bureaus they implied that “the status of the debt may have already been or may, at some later date, be submitted to the credit bureaus” and that such conduct “is actionable under the Act.” Id., at 1148 n.1.

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases–Gonzales v. Arrow Financial: California Federal Court Holds Debt Collection Letter Violated FDCPA And California Rosenthal Act And Denies Defense Motion To Decertify Class Action" »

Posted In: Certification of Class Actions, FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Dismissal of Class Action Alleging Violations of Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) did not Warrant Notice to Absent Members of Putative Class because no Evidence of Reasonable Reliance on Prosecution of Class Action Ohio Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff/debtor filed a putative class action against attorneys for a creditor alleging that the law firm’s collection efforts violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Defense attorneys successfully moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims in her class action complaint on the ground that she lacked standing to prosecute claims that now belonged to the bankruptcy trustee, and the federal court rejected plaintiff’s effort to bar the bankruptcy trustee from settling with the defense. Thereafter, the bankruptcy trustee “acting in good faith on behalf of the estate's creditors, negotiated a settlement with Defendants”; however, the district court agreed with plaintiff/debtor that “notice of the involuntary dismissal should be given to the putative class members, because some risk existed that those class members would be prejudiced by the expiration of the statute of limitations later this year.” Griffith v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, LLP, 241 F.R.D. 600, 601 (S.D. Ohio 2007). Plaintiff filed her proposed notices and requested that defendant be ordered to pay for the notice; defense attorneys moved the court to reconsider its order requiring notice to putative class members, id. The court granted the defense motion, holding that notice need not be provided to putative class members.

Preliminarily, the federal court found that the proposed notices prepared by plaintiff’s counsel were “clearly inadequate” and that they “simply invite contact with Plaintiff's counsel.” Griffith, at 601. The court further stated that it would not order defendant to pay the costs of the notice, noting that as a general rule in class actions the plaintiff is responsible for the costs associated with notices to the class, especially when the court has not yet ruled on the merits of any claim alleged in the class action complaint id.

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Case-Griffith v. Javitch: Ohio Federal Court Holds Pre-Certification Notice To Putative Class Of Dismissal Of Class Action Not Required Because No Evidence Of Reliance Or Prejudice" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

District Court Concludes that Validation Notice in Debt Collection Letter was Presumptively Valid because it Tracked Section 1692g of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), but Concluded that Least Sophisticated Consumer could have been Confused by “Subject To” Language in Letter and so Denies Defense Motion to Dismiss Class Action Complaint

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against debt collection law firm alleging that a debt collection letter sent in August 2005 violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Meselsohn v. Lerman, 485 F.Supp.2d 215, 216 (E.D.N.Y. 2007). Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action complaint for failure to state a claim on the ground that the letter was presumptively valid. Surprisingly, plaintiff admitted that the letter “properly informs the consumer of his rights to dispute the debt, request verification of the debt and request creditor information within thirty (30) days of the initial communication from the debt collector.” Id., at 217. The class action complaint was premised on the theory that the letter violated the FDCPA because the 30-day validation period required by Section 1692g is “improperly overshadowed by the demand for payment of the debt within the same thirty days.” Id. According to plaintiff, it was unclear that he had the right “to either pay the debt or request validation,” id. (italics added). Defense attorneys argued that dismissal of the class action was warranted because the letter “tracks the statutory language of the FDCPA and is presumptively valid,” and argued further that the demand for payment “is specifically made ‘subject to’ the thirty day notice provisions” and so the validation notice is not “overshadowed” by the payment demand. Id. Plaintiff countered that the letters should have included “transitional language explaining to the consumer that the demand for payment does not override the consumer's right to seek validation of the debt” and that it is deficient because it is not clear that the consumer may either pay the debt or dispute it. Id. The district court agreed with plaintiff.

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases-Meselsohn v. Lerman: New York Federal Court Denies Defense Motion To Dismiss Class Action Under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Holding Collection Letter Complied With Statute But Required Transitional Language" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

FDCPA Class Action Certified Over Defense Objection that Range of 100-500 Class Members does not Satisfy Numerosity and that Allegation that Debt Collection Letters Violate Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Presented Common Questions of Law and Fact Illinois Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Check Brokerage Corp. alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) based on debt collection letters sent by the company. Day v. Check Brokerage Corp., 240 F.R.D. 414, 415 (N.D. Ill. 2007). The class action alleged that defendant’s letters violate the FDCPA in that they are “false, deceptive, or misleading as determined by the unsophisticated consumer standard and therefore in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e), (e)(2)(A), (e)(5), and (e)(10).” Id., at 416. The class action complaint also alleged that defendant “used unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692(f) and (f)(1)” and that the notice concerning a consumer's right to dispute a debt failed to comply with 15 U.S.C. § 1692(g)(a), id. Plaintiff moved the court to certify the litigation as a class action; defense attorneys argued that class action treatment was inappropriate because neither numerosity nor commonality had been met. Id., at 415. The district court disagreed.

The class action complaint was premised upon four debt collection letters defendant sent to plaintiff concerning a $20 debt. Day, at 416. The first letter advised Day that his $20 check had not cleared, that he now owed $65 (which included a “return check charge” of $25 and a “bank charge to merchant” of $20), and that additional fees may be imposed if payment is not made promptly and it was in his "‘best interests to clear this check immediately,’ despite the notification at the end of the letter that Day had thirty days to dispute the validity of the debt.” Id. The second letter “suggest[ed] you give this matter your immediate attention" and quoted Illinois Commercial Code § 3-806 about liability for dishonored checks. Id. The third letter “demand[ed] the $65.40 and stat[ed], ‘WE MUST HAVE YOUR PAYMENT NOW!!’” The letter also warned plaintiff that he could be liable for additional amounts. Id. Finally, the fourth letter stated, "THIS CHECK REMAINS UNPAID! WE ARE, THEREFORE, GOING TO SHOW YOU HOW MUCH IT COULD COST SHOULD IT GO TO LITIGATION." This letter included reference to warrants for arrest and adverse credit reports, and ended, "Common sense would dictate that this check be paid at this point. THE AMOUNT DUE, INCLUDING THE CHECK AND SERVICE CHARGES TO THIS POINT, IS $65.40." Id.

Continue reading "Class Action Defense Cases-Day v. Check Brokerage: Illinois Federal Court Holds That Class Action Rule 23(a)(1) Numerosity Test Does Not Require Exact Number And Debt Collection Letters Presented Common Questions Of Fact And Law" »

Posted In: Certification of Class Actions, FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

FDCPA Class Action Claim Belonged to Bankruptcy Estate and Settlement of Individual Claim Appropriate because Trustee could not Prosecute Class Action Ohio Federal Court Holds

After a law firm filed an action to collect a debt from her, plaintiff filed a putative class action against the law firm alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Griffith v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, LLP, 358 B.R. 338, 340 (S.D. Ohio 2007). Shortly thereafter, plaintiff and her husband filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the federal court for the Southern District of Ohio, staying the underlying action, and plaintiff listed the class action as a contingent claim her creditor, Great Seneca Financial Corporation, but did not separately list her class action against the law firm. Id. The bankruptcy trustee determined that it was a no-asset case, and plaintiff and her husband received a bankruptcy discharge in October 2004; less than a month later, the underlying lawsuit was reopened. Id. The parties jointly requested a stay pending a decision by the federal Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in a case concerning “several defenses to an FDCPA suit that are raised by [the law firm] here on essentially identical factual allegations,” id. (citing Todd v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis, 434 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2006). The underlying class action again became active in June 2006.

Defense attorneys moved for dismissal or summary judgment, arguing that the class action claim belonged to the bankruptcy trustee because it was not properly listed on the bankruptcy petition schedules; accordingly, the defense argued, plaintiff lacked standing to prosecute the class action. Griffith, at 340. Plaintiff countered that a “class action claim” had been listed on the petition, and advised the court that the bankruptcy trustee would be filing a formal abandonment of the claim so that her class action could proceed; instead, the trustee advised plaintiff’s lawyer that it would not be in the best interests of the bankruptcy estate to abandon the claim. Id. The court issued an order to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of standing, but the defense motions were held in abeyance pending further bankruptcy court proceedings. Id. The trustee moved to reopen the bankruptcy case, and to hire plaintiff’s lawyer to prosecute the class action on behalf of the estate. Id.

Continue reading "Class Action Defense Cases-Griffith v. Javitch: Ohio Court Holds Debtor’s Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Class Action Claim Belongs To Bankruptcy Trustee And Approves Settlement Of Individual Claim" »

Posted In: Certification of Class Actions, FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) does not Authorize Injunctive Relief Against Debt Collectors, FDCPA One-Year Statute of Limitations Begins to Run no later than Date Debt Collector Files Suit Against Debtor, and Debt Collector need only Establish that Notice Required by § 1692g was Sent, not Received, California Federal Court

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against debt collector and its attorneys in California state court for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and California’s equivalent statute known as the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (California’s FDCPA). Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court and moved to dismiss the California state-law claims arguing that they were barred by California’s litigation privilege; the district court agreed with the defense and dismissed those portions of the class action complaint. Taylor v. Quall, 471 F.Supp.2d 1053, 1056-57 (C.D. Cal. 2007). Defense attorneys then filed a motion to strike certain portions of the class action complaint, as well as a motion for summary judgment. Id., at 1055-56. The district court granted these motions in part, and granted the request of plaintiff’s lawyer for additional time to conduct discovery as to the FDCPA § 1692e claim in the class action complaint.

The class action arose from the following facts: a Plaintiff obtained a credit card from Citibank but stopped making payments on the card in early 2002. Citibank transferred the debt to defendant Unifund CCR Partners, and Unifund retained California attorney Matthew Quall to collect the debt. Taylor, at 1056. Quall sent plaintiff a collection letter in May 2005, and filed suit against plaintiff in June 2005; that lawsuit eventually settled, and Quall filed a request for dismissal without prejudice. Id. Plaintiff’s class action complaint was filed in July 2006 (mistakenly identified as 2005 in the court order), the claims of which the district court summarized at page 1056: “Plaintiff asserts that Quall (1) failed to provide the proper notice of debt required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g when he began his collection efforts; (2) made false or misleading representations while negotiating the settlement in violation of § 1692e; (3) failed to fulfill the FDCPA's standard for “meaningful” attorney involvement; and (4) violated the FDCPA by filing the Unifund Action without complying with California statutes governing suits brought on behalf of entities with fictitious business names.”

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases-Taylor v. Quall: California Federal Court Partially Grants Defense Motions To Strike And For Summary Judgment In Class Action Alleging FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) Violations" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Debtor need not Pay Debt to have Standing to Prosecute Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Class Action and Debtor Entitled to Summary Judgment on § 1692g Claim because Collection Letter did not Track Statute but Triable Issues of Fact Existed as to Alleged Violations of § 1692e(5) and (10) as the Language in Collection Letters was Subject to Reasonable and Different Interpretations Florida Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against a debt collector, Amalgamated Debt Collection Services, for violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and various state laws arising out of its efforts to collect $39.32. Rivera v. Amalgamated Debt Collection Services, Inc., 462 F.Supp.2d 1223, 1225-26 (S.D. Fla. 2006). Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment as to defendant's liability for violating the FDCPA, id., at 1225; defense attorneys argued that triable issues of fact exist, and that plaintiff lacked standing, id., at 1227. The district court granted the motion in part, but agreed with defense attorneys that triable issues of fact existed as to interpretation of certain language in debt collection letters.

The facts are straight-forward: In an effort to collect a debt, Amalgamated sent plaintiff two letters, each of which stated in pertinent part, "unless this matter can be resolved within 30 days of the above date, it will be necessary to consider the institution of legal procedures against you" and that she had 30 days from the date of the letters to dispute the validity of the debt, Rivera, at 1225-26; it was undisputed, however, that Amalgamated had never commenced legal proceedings in an effort to collect a debt, id., at 1226. Amalgamated also sent plaintiff a letter stating "that her failure to remit payment within 15 days would result in the 'nationwide reporting' of her debt as a 'bad debt.'" Id. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment.

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases-Rivera v. Amalgamated Debt Collection Services: Florida Federal Court Holds Debt Collector Violated § 1692g Of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act But Issues Of Fact Exist As To § 1692e Claims" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

California's Litigation Privilege Bars Claims of Unfair Debt Collection Practices California Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action in California state court alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and California's equivalent statute, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA), and for violations of California's unfair competition law (UCL), California Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq. The lawsuit was premised on acts committed by defendants' efforts to collect a debt Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court, and filed a motion to dismiss two claims for relief. Taylor v. Quall, 458 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1065-66 (C.D. Cal. 2006). Defendants argued that their conduct was absolutely privileged because it was part of the lawsuit aimed at collecting the debt. Id., at 1066. The district court agreed with the defense and granted the motion.

Plaintiff's class action complaint alleged the following. After plaintiff lost his job, he received several calls from people attempting to collect monies owed on his Citibank credit card account. Plaintiff advised these people that he was unemployed and would not pay the debt. Eventually, these collection efforts ended. However, defendants thereafter acquired the Citibank debt and filed a lawsuit against plaintiff seeking to collect the amounts owed. Plaintiff claims the lawsuit was time-barred and that defendants lacked standing. Plaintiffs further alleges that "Defendants improperly sought attorney's fees and costs, and made multiple misrepresentations to Plaintiff until he ultimately settled the action." Taylor, at 1066. As noted above, defense attorneys argued that any statements made during the course of the lawsuit fell within the scope of the litigation privilege, thus warranting dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). The district court agreed.

Continue reading "Class Action Defense Cases-Taylor v. Quall: California Federal Court Grants Defense Motion To Dismiss Class Action Holding That Debt Collection Practices During Lawsuit Are Insulated By Litigation Privilege" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Class Action Alleging FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) Violations Based on Form Letters Sent to Debtors Warranted Class Certification Montana Federal Court Holds, Rejecting Defense Argument that Plaintiff's Statute of Limitations Defense to Debt Collection Defeated Predominance Requirement of Rule 23(b)(3)

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against a debt collector seeking to collect on dishonored checks for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) based on letters sent to debtors that demanded fees not authorized by state or federal law. Alexander v. JBC Legal Group, P.C., 237 F.R.D. 628, 629 (D. Mont. 2006). Plaintiff's lawyer moved for certification of the class action; defense attorneys opposed the motion arguing that the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a) is not met and that plaintiff's statute of limitations defense defeats certification under Rule 23(b)(3).

In 2004, defendant JBC Legal Group sent a letter to plaintiff seeking to collect $6.07 for a dishonored check that had been written more then 12 years earlier. Alexander, at 629. "The letter demanded that Alexander remit to Defendants $46.07 and stated that he would be subject to a penalty of triple the amount of the check, or $100.00, whichever was greater, if he failed to make payment within thirty days." Id. A month later, defendant sent plaintiff a letter demanding $146.07. Id. Several months later, defendant sent plaintiff another letter demanding $146.07. Id.

Continue reading "Alexander v. JBC-Class Action Defense Cases: Montana Court Rejects Defense Objections To Certification Of Class Action Alleging Violations Of Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Federal Court Rejects Class Action Claim that Offer to Settle Debt for 50% of Current Balance Due Violates Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint against Midland Credit Management, a debt collector that purchases debts from third-party creditors, alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. Midland sent letters attempting to collect outstanding debts; the class action complaint alleged that the letters violated the FDCPA because they contain false and misleading information. Defense attorneys filed a motion for summary, and plaintiffs followed with a cross-motion for summary judgment. The federal district court agreed with defense attorneys that the collection letters did not violate the FDCPA and granted summary judgment in favor of Midland and against the class action plaintiffs. Jackson v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 445 F.Supp.2d 1015, 1017 (N.D. Ill. 2006).

Preliminarily, the district court noted that the Seventh Circuit “evaluates FDCPA claims through the eyes of an ‘unsophisticated debtor’” – it does not employ the “least sophisticated debtor” test adopted by some sister circuits. Jackson, at 1018-19. The court explained at page 1018 that, under this test,

“The unsophisticated debtor is regarded as ‘uninformed, naive, or trusting,’ but nonetheless is considered to have a ‘rudimentary knowledge about the financial world and is capable of making basic logical deductions and inferences.’” (Citations omitted.)

Because the court’s analysis requires an understanding of the specific language used in Midland’s letters, we provide the quoted language, including the emphasis in the original letters, as set forth by the district court at page 1017:

Continue reading "Jackson v. Midland Credit-Class Action Defense Cases: Illinois Federal Court Grants Defense Motion For Summary Judgment Holding Debt Collection Letter Did Not Violate Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

In Case of First Impression Florida District Court Holds that Collection Letter Sent by Law Firm Violated Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Because it Told Debtor that Validity of Debt could be Disputed Only in Writing

Plaintiff opened an American Express Centurion credit card account. American Express retained a law firm to collect amounts owed on the account. The law firm sent a “Dunning letter” that stated, in pertinent part, that the debtor had to “notify this office in writing within thirty days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of the debt.” Baez v. Wagner & Hunt, P.A., 442 F.Supp.2d 1273, 1274 (S.D. Fla. 2006) (italics added by court). Plaintiff filed a class action against the law firm alleging that the collection letter violated Section 1692g of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by requiring that the validity of the debt be disputed in writing, and defense attorneys moved to dismiss the complaint. Id., at 1274-75. The basis of the lawsuit is that Section 1692g(a)(3) requires that a debt collection letter notify the debtor that the debt will be assumed valid unless the debtor disputes the validity of the debt within 30 days. Sections 1692g(a)(4) and (a)(5), however, reference written notifications from the debtor disputing the debt. Defendant argued that its Dunning letter simply “provided [plaintiff] with additional guidance for disputing the debt and avoided confusion by reconciling the notification requirement in subsection (a)(3) with the writing requirement contained in subsections (a)(4) and (a)(5).” Baez, at 1275-76. The district court disagreed.

Continue reading "Baez v. Wagner & Hunt-Class Action Defense Cases: In Class Action Against Debt Collector Florida Federal Court Holds That Law Firm’s Collection Letter Violated Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

California Federal Court Reaffirms that Scope of Precertification Discovery in Class Action Lawsuits is Within the Discretion of the Court

A putative class action alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) was filed against a county district attorney and a private company (ACCS) under contract to administer the county’s Bad Check Restitution Program. Del Campo v. Kennedy, 236 F.R.D. 454 (N.D. Cal. 2006). After plaintiff learned that the check she had given a store merchant (Fry’s Electronics) did not clear, she called the store and offered to make full payment: “The store declined her offer because the check had not been entered yet into the computer system.” Id., at 456. Plaintiff later received a letter from the district attorney concerning the crime of writing a bad check, and advising her that she owed not only the amount of the check ($95.02), but a returned item fee ($10), administrative fee ($35), and bad check restitution program fee ($125); plaintiff tendered only the amount of the delinquent check. Id. Upon receiving a demand threatening criminal action if she failed to pay the $170 in additional fees, plaintiff filed the FDCPA class action. Id. Eventually, the class action was consolidated with another lawsuit. Plaintiff then filed subpoenas on two stores (Safeway and Target), and defense attorneys filed a motion to quash the subpoenas or for a protective order.

Continue reading "Class Action Defense Cases-Del Campo v. Kennedy: California Federal Court Denies Defense Motion For Protective Order That Sought To Bar Third Party Precertification Discovery In FDCPA Class Action" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Pennsylvania Federal District Court Holds that Named Class Action Plaintiffs may Recover Damages Under the FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) Both Individually and as a Member of the Class

A class action was filed in federal court against Drive Financial Services and Drive G.P. alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in that defendants allegedly sent letters “on the ostensible letterhead” of an attorney for the purpose of collecting a debt. McCall v. Drive Fin. Serv., L.P., 440 F.Supp.2d 388, 388-89 (E.D. Pa. 2006). Plaintiff’s lawyer filed a motion in limine to determine the amount of statutory damages that would be available under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(B). Id. The district court rejected the argument by defense attorneys that the named class action plaintiff could not also recover as a member of the class, and held the maximum amount of statutory damages available at trial to be $501,000. Id., at 391.

Continue reading "Class Action Defense Cases-McCall v. Drive Financial: Class Action Statutory Damages Under Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Can Exceed $500,000 Pennsylvania Court Holds" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Defense attorneys frequently face class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), which prohibits abusive, deceptive or otherwise improper debt collection practices by third-party debt collectors. At the same time, however, the FDCPA permits reasonable efforts to collect legitimate debts. The Federal Trade Commission is one of several federal agencies with enforcement obligations under the FDCPA. The FTC has primary enforcement responsibility under the FDCPA, and it is charged with preparing an annual report for Congress summarizing its administrative and enforcement actions it during the prior year. The report also summarizes consumer complaints concerning debt collection practices. The FTC’s 2006 Annual Report to Congress is now published.

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions

Ninth Circuit Resolves Several Issues of First Impression Concerning Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Holding Debtor Can Waive “Cease Communication” Directive, Debt Collectors May Rely on Information Provided by Creditors to Verify Debt, FDCPA is a Strict Liability Statute, and One Act Can Support Multiple Violations

Debtors filed suit against a debt collection agency, its employee and its outside counsel alleging various violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Oregon’s Unfair Debt Collection Practices Act. The defense and debtors filed cross-motions for summary judgment; the district court granted the motion brought by the attorney, partially granted the motion brought by the debt collector, and denied the motion brought by the debtors. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Services, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 2441705 (9th Cir. August 24, 2006). We provide a brief summary of the case, which the Ninth Circuit characterized as “present[ing] a complicated web of problems that has required us to address a litany of issues for which there is a dearth of applicable precedent” and for which it “endeavored to adopt a construction of the FDCPA that recognizes ‘there is room within the [FDCPA] for ethical debt collectors to make occasional unavoidable errors,” Slip Opn., at 10165 (citation omitted).

In an effort to collect a debt, a debt collector sent the debtor a collection notice letter. The debtor disputed the debt and detailed billing problems with the creditor. The debt collector sent a second notice, enclosing an itemized statement from the creditor and claiming that the statement adequately verified the debt. The debtor requested “proper verification” and instructed the debt collector to cease making telephone calls. Slip Opn., at 10143. The debt collector then retained counsel who, in response to a demand for verification of the debt and an end to telephone communications, responded with the same itemized statement previously provided to the debtor. The debtor subsequently called the attorney to discuss the debt, but received a return call from the debt collection agency that “so upset [her] that she was required to obtain therapy.” Id., at 10144. The debtors filed suit.

Continue reading "Class Action Defense Issues-Clark v. Capital Credit: Ninth Circuit Affirms In Part And Reverses In Part Federal District Court Judgment In Favor Defense In FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) Case" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Federal Court Holds Decertification of Class Action Appropriate Where Defense Lacks Financial Ability to Satisfy Claims

Plaintiffs filed a class action against defendants, including The Credit Store, alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); a Texas federal district court certified the class action, but the defense delayed implementation of the certification order by filing a bankruptcy petition. The district court decertified the class action against The Credit Store sua sponte because it lacked the financial ability to satisfy any judgment against it. Barnett v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 236 F.R.D. 307 (E.D. Tex. 2006). The district court summarized the allegations against The Credit Store as follows: "The plaintiffs contend that the defendant purchased old debts and changed the date of last activity on the accounts such that they could be reported to credit reporting agencies under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This gave the debt collectors leverage to collect the obsolete debts." Id., at 308.

Continue reading "Barnett v. Experian-Class Action Defense Cases: Texas Court Decertifies Class Action Under Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Decertified Because Defendant In Bankruptcy" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

New York Federal Court Converts Defense Motion to Dismiss FDCPA Class Action to Motion for Summary Judgment, Grants Motion, and Awards Defense Attorney Fees and Costs Because Lawsuit was Filed for Purpose of Harassment

After debt collector sent plaintiff a letter demanding payment of a $492 debt, plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging that the letter violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) because it (1) demanded payment within 30 days and (2) that the letter’s request for “payment or notice of dispute” within 30 days “might” be interpreted as giving the debtor 30 days from the date of the letter rather than from its receipt. Jacobson v. Healthcare Fin. Servs, Inc., 434 F.Supp.2d 133, 139 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). The defense was not amused; and judging from the ruling, neither was the federal court.

The federal court discussed the fact that FDCPA claims are subject to abuse:

Continue reading "Class Action Defense Cases-Jacobson v. Healthcare Financial: New York Federal Court Throws Out Class Action Under FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) And Awards Defense Attorney Fees" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

California Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of Wolpoff & Abramson and Client MBNA, and Issues Order to Show Cause re Rule 11 Sanctions Against Plaintiff

The law firm of Wolpoff & Abramson LLP is no stranger to litigation: it routinely prosecutes debt collection actions on behalf of national retail and banking clients; and it has been named in many individual and class action lawsuits by people upset at the Wolpoff firm’s efforts to collect on delinquent accounts. According to a lawyer at Wolpoff & Abramson, the law firm aggressively defends lawsuits filed against it, and statistically it appears to do a very good job in presenting its defense. The most recent court ruling concerning the firm comes out of a California federal court, which granted the defense motions for summary judgment. Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2006 WL 1728915 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2006). The action was filed by a lawyer (John Gorman) against MNBA and its attorneys, the Wolpoff firm, asserting causes of action under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and libel. (The claims under California state law that existed in Gorman’s original complaint were dismissed without leave to amend in response to an earlier defense motion. See Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 370 F.Supp.2d 1005, 1010-11 (N.D. Cal. 2005).)

Gorman’s action was precipitated by a contested credit card charge of roughly $760 that MBNA initially removed but then reposted. The federal court found that Gorman stopped making payments to MBNA in May 2003, “but then deliberately charged thousands of dollars more on his MBNA credit card” and then in August 2003 demanded that MBNA write off “the entirety of his balance of over $5000.” Instead, MBNA retained Wolpoff to file a debt collection suit against Gorman.

Continue reading "Class Action Defense Issues--Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson: Law Firm Again Prevails In Action Alleging Violations of FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) and FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act)" »

Posted In: FCRA Class Actions, FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Requires Affirmative Action, Fair Credit Reporting Act Does Not Apply to Commercial Activity,

On July 10, 2006, a federal appellate court consolidated two appeals and (1) agreed with eBay's defense team that eBay was not subject to the federal FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) or the federal FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act), and (2) affirmed that eBay compliance with a subpoena for records did not violate the federal ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act) or the federal SCA (Stored Communications Act): it therefore affirmed the dismissals entered in both underlying lawsuits. McCready v. eBay, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 1881142 (7th Cir. 2006). For clarity, we address the two lawsuits separately. The first lawsuit arose from the fact that plaintiff utilized eBay's services to operate an online business through which he would buy and sell goods. Several eBay users became unhappy with their business dealings with plaintiff; they used eBay's "Feedback Forum" to explain their dissatisfaction, and several of them notified eBay of their complaints. eBay told plaintiff of the complaints and explained that his accounts would be suspended if the complaints were not resolved. Ultimately, eBay suspended plaintiff's accounts but offered to reinstate them if he reimbursed monies to the claimants. "Rather than make good on his sales, [plaintiff] embarked on retaliatory litigation," Slip Opn., at 2, and a summary of that litigation is described in the Note below. Relevant here, plaintiff filed a federal court complaint against eBay alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq., the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq., the Electronic Fund Transfers Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693 et seq., Title 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, and nine (9) state law claims. Id., at 3. The district court granted the defense motion to dismiss the FDCPA and FCRA claims, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims; the parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice of the bankruptcy claim. Id., at 4.

With respect to the FDCPA claim, the Seventh Circuit observed that eBay simply suspended plaintiff's accounts until he resolved the outstanding fraud complaints and never threatened to take collection against him; the Court held that such conduct could not be deemed an attempt to "collect" a debt. McCready, at 8. With respect to the FCRA claim, plaintiff asserted that eBay's "Feedback Forum" constituted a "consumer report, id., at 9. The Court quickly dispatched this claim on several grounds:

Continue reading "Class Action Defense Cases–McCready v. eBay: eBay Not A Debt Collector Under Federal FDCPA Or Reporting Agency Under Federal FCRA, And eBay Lawfully Produced Documents Pursuant To Subpoena, Seventh Circuit Holds" »

Posted In: FCRA Class Actions, FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

While Congress enacted the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., in 1978 for the purpose of establishing certain that ethical guidelines for the collection of consumer debts, and to provide debtors with a means for challenging payoff demands and determining the validity and accuracy of asserted debts, it did not intend to foreclose States from enacting laws concerning debt collection practices. Several states, such as California, have enacted such laws, and defense attorneys must frequently defend against class actions filed under such State laws. Congress expressed its intent not to preempt State laws - “except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent” with the FDCPA - in § 1692n, set forth below. Congress also provided that the Federal Trade Commission debt collection practices from State laws or regulations under the provisions of § 1692o, also set forth below.

§ 1692n. Relation to State laws

This subchapter does not annul, alter, or affect, or exempt any person subject to the provisions of this subchapter from complying with the laws of any State with respect to debt collection practices, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with any provision of this subchapter, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency. For purposes of this section, a State law is not inconsistent with this subchapter if the protection such law affords any consumer is greater than the protection provided by this subchapter.

§ 1692o. Exemption for State regulation

The Commission shall by regulation exempt from the requirements of this subchapter any class of debt collection practices within any State if the Commission determines that under the law of that State that class of debt collection practices is subject to requirements substantially similar to those imposed by this subchapter, and that there is adequate provision for enforcement.

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Statutes & Rules

Congress enacted the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., in 1978 for the purpose of establishing certain that ethical guidelines for the collection of consumer debts, and to provide debtors with a means for challenging payoff demands and determining the validity and accuracy of asserted debts. Congress also authorized the Federal Trade Commission to commence administrative actions against debt collectors for violations of the FDCPA, and charged the Commission with an obligation to report to Congress annually on FDCPA matters. The specific statutory language concerning these reports is as follows:

§ 1692m. Reports to Congress by the Commission; views of other Federal agencies

(a) Not later than one year after the effective date of this subchapter and at one-year intervals thereafter, the Commission shall make reports to the Congress concerning the administration of its functions under this subchapter, including such recommendations as the Commission deems necessary or appropriate. In addition, each report of the Commission shall include its assessment of the extent to which compliance with this subchapter is being achieved and a summary of the enforcement actions taken by the Commission under section 1692l of this title.

(b) In the exercise of its functions under this subchapter, the Commission may obtain upon request the views of any other Federal agency which exercises enforcement functions under section 1692l of this title.

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Statutes & Rules

When Congress enacted the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., in 1978, it provided not only for private rights of action by debtors against debt collectors, it also provided for administrative enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission. While defense against a class action is certainly a concern for debt collectors, the lawyer advising debt collectors does well to keep in mind and advise the client as to the administrative proceedings that may be brought to bear. As a resource to the class action defense lawyer, we set forth the text of the administrative enforcement provision of the FDCPA:

§ 1692l. Administrative enforcement

(a) Federal Trade Commission

Compliance with this subchapter shall be enforced by the Commission, except to the extent that enforcement of the requirements imposed under this subchapter is specifically committed to another agency under subsection (b) of this section. For purpose of the exercise by the Commission of its functions and powers under the Federal Trade Commission Act [15 U.S.C.A. § 41 et seq.], a violation of this subchapter shall be deemed an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of that Act. All of the functions and powers of the Commission under the Federal Trade Commission Act are available to the Commission to enforce compliance by any person with this subchapter, irrespective of whether that person is engaged in commerce or meets any other jurisdictional tests in the Federal Trade Commission Act, including the power to enforce the provisions of this subchapter in the same manner as if the violation had been a violation of a Federal Trade Commission trade regulation rule.

(b) Applicable provisions of law

Compliance with any requirements imposed under this subchapter shall be enforced under--

(1) section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act [12 U.S.C.A. § 1818], in the case of--

(A) national banks, and Federal branches and Federal agencies of foreign banks, by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency;

(B) member banks of the Federal Reserve System (other than national banks), branches and agencies of foreign banks (other than Federal branches, Federal agencies, and insured State branches of foreign banks), commercial lending companies owned or controlled by foreign banks, and organizations operating under section 25 or 25(a) [FN1] of the Federal Reserve Act [12 U.S.C.A. § § 601 et seq., 611 et seq.], by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; and

(C) banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (other than members of the Federal Reserve System) and insured State branches of foreign banks, by the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;

(2) section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act [12 U.S.C.A. § 1818], by the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, in the case of a savings association the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;

(3) the Federal Credit Union Act [12 U.S.C.A. § 1751 et seq.], by the National Credit Union Administration Board with respect to any Federal credit union;

(4) subtitle IV of Title 49, by the Secretary of Transportation, with respect to all carriers subject to the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board;

(5) part A of subtitle VII of Title 49, by the Secretary of Transportation with respect to any air carrier or any foreign air carrier subject to that part; and

(6) the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 [7 U.S.C.A. § 181 et seq.] (except as provided in section 406 of that Act [7 U.S.C.A. § § 226, 227]), by the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to any activities subject to that Act.

The terms used in paragraph (1) that are not defined in this subchapter or otherwise defined in section 3(s) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(s)) shall have the meaning given to them in section 1(b) of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3101).

(c) Agency powers

For the purpose of the exercise by any agency referred to in subsection (b) of this section of its powers under any Act referred to in that subsection, a violation of any requirement imposed under this subchapter shall be deemed to be a violation of a requirement imposed under that Act. In addition to its powers under any provision of law specifically referred to in subsection (b) of this section, each of the agencies referred to in that subsection may exercise, for the purpose of enforcing compliance with any requirement imposed under this subchapter any other authority conferred on it by law, except as provided in subsection (d) of this section.

(d) Rules and regulations

Neither the Commission nor any other agency referred to in subsection (b) of this section may promulgate trade regulation rules or other regulations with respect to the collection of debts by debt collectors as defined in this subchapter.

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Statutes & Rules

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., enacted by Congress in 1978, establishes certain that ethical guidelines for the collection of consumer debts, and provides debtors with a means for challenging payoff demands and determining the validity and accuracy of asserted debts. As class action defense attorneys know, the FDCPA has generated numerous class actions. The FDCPA expressly provides private rights of action and for the recovery statutory damages as well as actual damages. The FDCPA also expressly provides for class action recoveries. As a resource to the class action defense lawyer, we quote below the statutory provision of the FDCPA concerning civil liability:

§ 1692k. Civil liability

(a) Amount of damages

Except as otherwise provided by this section, any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of this subchapter with respect to any person is liable to such person in an amount equal to the sum of--

(1) any actual damage sustained by such person as a result of such failure;

(2)(A) in the case of any action by an individual, such additional damages as the court may allow, but not exceeding $1,000; or

(B) in the case of a class action, (i) such amount for each named plaintiff as could be recovered under subparagraph (A), and (ii) such amount as the court may allow for all other class members, without regard to a minimum individual recovery, not to exceed the lesser of $500,000 or 1 per centum of the net worth of the debt collector; and

(3) in the case of any successful action to enforce the foregoing liability, the costs of the action, together with a reasonable attorney's fee as determined by the court. On a finding by the court that an action under this section was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, the court may award to the defendant attorney's fees reasonable in relation to the work expended and costs.

(b) Factors considered by court

In determining the amount of liability in any action under subsection (a) of this section, the court shall consider, among other relevant factors--

(1) in any individual action under subsection (a)(2)(A) of this section, the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of such noncompliance, and the extent to which such noncompliance was intentional; or

(2) in any class action under subsection (a)(2)(B) of this section, the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of such noncompliance, the resources of the debt collector, the number of persons adversely affected, and the extent to which the debt collector's noncompliance was intentional.

(c) Intent

A debt collector may not be held liable in any action brought under this subchapter if the debt collector shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.

(d) Jurisdiction

An action to enforce any liability created by this subchapter may be brought in any appropriate United States district court without regard to the amount in controversy, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, within one year from the date on which the violation occurs.

(e) Advisory opinions of Commission

No provision of this section imposing any liability shall apply to any act done or omitted in good faith in conformity with any advisory opinion of the Commission, notwithstanding that after such act or omission has occurred, such opinion is amended, rescinded, or determined by judicial or other authority to be invalid for any reason.

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Statutes & Rules